---------------------
A. Is the Vote a Privilege or a Duty?
Delegates at Progressive Era conventions often disagreed about the nature of suffrage. One fight proved core to the debate over compulsory voting: Is the vote a “privilege” (or “right”101), or a “duty” (or “trust”)?102 If voting is a privilege, the choice of whether to exercise it might seem personal; but if voting is a duty, it might be required. In other words, the “real question . . . goes down to the roots of the theory of the electoral process.”103 This section traces these competing conceptions.
1. Pro: The Vote Is a Duty. — Many advocates viewed voting as a duty, echoing Mill’s argument. One delegate argued that “[t]his vote is not a thing in which [a person] has an option; . . . [i]t is strictly a matter of duty.”104 On this view, the “real nature of the vote” is “entirely outside” any individual voter; far from “personal property” one could dispose at will, the vote conferred a “trust” which voters had an obligation to use “for the benefit of every person.”105
This duty/privilege distinction was core to the case for compulsory voting: if voting is a “mere privilege,” it cannot be compelled, but if it is a “trust or obligation,” then neglecting it can “seriously affect the whole course and progress of a state” — justifying state compulsion.106 The privilege to vote thus required using it well: those who “accept the blessings of democracy” should “assume the burdens of democracy.”107 This argument was supported by limitations on suffrage at the time: since all of “we the people” were sovereign, yet only some could vote, that “delegated portion” must use the vote on behalf of the “rest.”108 Only then would the “best men” be elected and the full electorate democratically represented.109
2. Con: The Vote Is a Privilege (or Is Not a Legal Duty). — Opponents of compulsory voting saw voting as a “privilege” (or, relatedly, a “right”). This privilege “to be allowed to vote”110 was a “priceless gift”111 not to be exercised by rote requirement.112 Some cited the fact that suffrage was not universal to show it could not be a duty for all.113 More broadly, opponents believed compelling the vote violated the “general spirit of our laws”114 and the nature of the right to vote, which included a right not to vote: “[I]f suffrage is a sovereign right of the citizen, he must be as free . . . not to exercise it as to exercise it . . . .”115 Because the “whole theory of a democracy . . . exists by virtue of the consent of the governed,”116 voters must get to choose how they exercise consent, not be forced “to the polls like cattle to the slaughter.”117
Other opponents conceded that voting was a duty but one that could not be compelled. Even if the vote is a “trust,” voters retain a separate “duty” and “right” of “discriminating as to when [they] shall” vote.118 And, even if voting “should be performed,” that did not mean it must be performed.119 It was especially important to protect the right not to vote to protest a lack of candidates “entitled to our suffrage.”120 This view of the vote emphasized that voting was a personal act, not a public one.
-----------------
What catches my eye is the emboldened section of the "Con's"...i.e. How is the "Consent to be Governed" established, if not for VOTING?...ergo, how can let's say, 2 out of three voters decide what's a right or privilege for 100, or more, other citizens?...anyone sense a bit of "Taxation Without Representation"?
Thoughts?...
